Search

Contains fulltext : 245416.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), The Covid-19 pandemic has put policy systems to the test. In this paper, we unmask the institutionalized resilience of the Dutch health care system to pandemic crisis. Building on logics of crisis decision-making and on the notion of 'tact', we reveal how the Dutch government initially succeeded in orchestrating collective action through aligning public health purposes and installing socio-economic policies to soften societal impact. However, when the crisis evolved into a more enduring one, a more contested policy arena emerged in which decision-makers had a hard time composing and defending a united decision-making strategy. Measures have become increasingly debated on all policy levels as well as among experts, and conflicts are widely covered in the Dutch media. With the 2021 elections ahead, this means an additional test of the resilience of the Dutch socio-political and health care systems.

05 maart 2021, Contains fulltext : 230797.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Contains fulltext : 230797.pdf (Author’s version postprint ) (Closed access)

Cities Connecting on complexity café, 27 januari 2022, Avans Hogeschool, Item does not contain fulltext

convenant ondertekening Regionale Expertise Teams Jeugdzorg, 12 oktober 2022, Regionaal Expertise Netwerk Overijssel, Item does not contain fulltext

IPPW-3, 29 juni 2022, Item does not contain fulltext

Conferentie Zorg en Veiligheid Zuid Limburg, 12 november 2022, provincie Limburg, Invited lecture, Item does not contain fulltext

inaugural lecture / oratie, 10 november 2022, Inaugural lecture, Contains fulltext : 285395.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 236739.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

28 juni 2021, Contains fulltext : 238569.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Most research into the relationship between social capital and cooperatives takes social capital as the independent variable and the cooperative as the dependent variable, but as yet the authors know little about causality in the other direction. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the cooperative structure helps to maintain organizational social capital.

08 november 2020, Contains fulltext : 228778pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 215852pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 201483.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Radboud University, 06 april 2018, Promotor : Brandsen, T. Co-promotor : Helderman, J.K., Contains fulltext : 187694.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Democratic institutions and state-society relations shape governance arrangements and expectations between public and private stakeholders about public health impact. We illustrate this with a comparison between the English Public Health Responsibility Deal (RD) and the Dutch ‘All About Health…’ (AaH) programme. As manifestations of a Whole-of-Society approach, in which governments, civil society and business take responsibility for the co-production of economic utility and good health, these programmes are two recent collaborative platforms based on voluntary agreements to improve public health. Using a ‘most similar cases’ design, we conducted a comparative secondary analysis of data from the evaluations of the two programmes. The underlying rationale of both programmes was that voluntary agreements would be better suited than regulation to encourage business and civil society to take more responsibility for improving health. Differences between the two included: expectations of an enforcing versus facilitative role for government; hierarchical versus horizontal coordination; big business versus civil society participants; top-down versus bottom-up formulation of voluntary pledges and progress monitoring for accountability versus for learning and adaptation. Despite the attempt in both programmes to base voluntary commitments on trust, the English ‘shadow of hierarchy’ and adversarial state-society relationships conditioned non-governmental parties to see the pledges as controlling, quasi-contractual agreements that were only partially lived up to. The Dutch consensual political tradition enabled a civil society-based understanding and gradual acceptance of the pledges as the internalization by partner organizations of public health values within their operations. We conclude that there are institutional limitations to the implementation of generic trust-building and learning-based models of change ‘Whole-of-Society’ approaches.

Contains fulltext : 182974.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), This chapter is about a programme called “All about Health…” the programme aims at improving health by engaging all members of society in a social health movement, which greatly resembles a whole-of-society approach. The country chosen for this case study is the Netherlands, as the government and numerous organizations have engaged in collaboration. There are various CSOs, commercial partners, municipalities and government agencies and services involved. While there are many concrete health related “pledges” made between the partners of the programme, the overall aim is to move from government to governance and to involve many more stakeholders in policy making and implementation at all levels. Most prominently, partners organised events and provided services to the public. Additionally, they provided evidence, contributed to policy developed, exercised advocacy, helped consensus building, acted as watch dogs, provided services and acted as self-regulators. Strong government support, a small programme office and an ongoing programme evaluation have been instrumental to the progress of the programme. The authors conclude that the first three years of “All about Health…” seems to provide an early backing of the hypotheses that CSOs contribute to health though it is too early for a final assessment.

Contains fulltext : 178380.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), If public health is the field that diagnoses and strives to cure social ills, then understanding political causes and cures for health problems should be an intrinsic part of the field. In this article, we argue that there is no support for the simple and common, implicit model of politics in which scientific evidence plus political will produces healthy policies. Efforts to improve the translation of evidence into policy such as knowledge transfer work only under certain circumstances. These circumstances are frequently political, and to be understood through systematic inquiry into basic features of the political economy such as institutions, partisanship and the organization of labour markets.

Radboud University, 27 juni 2017, Promotor : Brandsen, T. Co-promotor : Helderman, J.K., Contains fulltext : 173502.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 166628.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), Embedding health technology assessment (HTA) in a fair process has great potential to capture societal values relevant to public reimbursement decisions on health technologies. However, the development of such processes for priority setting has largely been theoretical. In this paper, we provide further practical lead ways on how these processes can be implemented. We first present the misconception between facts and values that is since long misleading the conduct of HTA. We then argue that HTA should instead be explicitly organized as an ongoing evidence-informed deliberative process, that facilitates learning among stakeholders. This has important consequences for whose values to consider, how to deal with vested interests, how to consider all values in the decision-making process, and how to communicate decisions. This is in stark contrast to how HTA processes are implemented now. It is time to set the stage for HTA as learning.

Contains fulltext : 177074.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

01 januari 2017, Contains fulltext : 166628.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), Embedding health technology assessment (HTA) in a fair process has great potential to capture societal values relevant to public reimbursement decisions on health technologies. However, the development of such processes for priority setting has largely been theoretical. In this paper, we provide further practical lead ways on how these processes can be implemented. We first present the misconception between facts and values that is since long misleading the conduct of HTA. We then argue that HTA should instead be explicitly organized as an ongoing evidence-informed deliberative process, that facilitates learning among stakeholders. This has important consequences for whose values to consider, how to deal with vested interests, how to consider all values in the decision-making process, and how to communicate decisions. This is in stark contrast to how HTA processes are implemented now. It is time to set the stage for HTA as learning.

Contains fulltext : 165909.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 173677.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), Embedding health technology assessment (HTA) in a fair process has great potential to capture societal values relevant to public reimbursement decisions on health technologies. However, the development of such processes for priority setting has largely been theoretical. In this paper, we provide further practical lead ways on how these processes can be implemented. We first present the misconception about the relation between facts and values that is since long misleading the conduct of HTA and underlies the current assessment-appraisal split. We then argue that HTA should instead be explicitly organized as an ongoing evidence-informed deliberative process, that facilitates learning among stakeholders. This has important consequences for whose values to consider, how to deal with vested interests, how to consider all values in the decision-making process, and how to communicate decisions. This is in stark contrast to how HTA processes are implemented now. It is time to set the stage for HTA as learning.

Contains fulltext : 163305.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), In 2015 heeft de Universiteit Maastricht in samenwerking met de Radboud Universiteit in opdracht van ZonMw een eerste analyse gemaakt van de bestuurlijk-organisatorische aanpak van het Nationaal Programma Preventie Alles is Gezondheid… Het programma markeert een uitbreiding van het beleidsinstrumentarium van het Rijksgezondheidsbeleid (regelgeving, financiële prikkels, onderzoek en ontwikkeling) met vrijwillige publiek-private netwerkvorming. Beoogd wordt hiermee de capaciteit voor bewustwording en gedragsverandering te vergroten met als doel bij de burger uiteindelijk een groter gezondheidseffect te realiseren. Snelle effecten kunnen redelijkerwijs niet worden verwacht. Een procesevaluatie met tussentijdse terugkoppeling is in dit stadium meer valide dan een evaluatie van uitkomsten. De probleemstelling in onze studie luidt: Hoe functioneert Alles is Gezondheid… als coördinatie-arrangement om samenhang te creëren in maatschappelijke activiteiten op het gebied van gezondheidsbevordering en preventie van diverse actoren in verschillende settings, deze activiteiten uit te breiden naar een maatschappelijke beweging, en daardoor bij te dragen aan een betere borging en verantwoording van het gezondheidsbelang in diverse maatschappelijke settings en een hogere doelmatigheid van de inzet? Hierbij vond een eerste analyse plaats op basis van een quick scan van vier gelijksoortige programma’s in binnen- en buitenland, archiefonderzoek bij het ministerie van VWS, meeloopdagen met het Programmabureau, verkennende gesprekken en interviews met pledgehouders en bureaumedewerkers, en een datascan van alle pledges. In deze bijdrage geven we een theoretische duiding aan dit programma en een eerste impressie op basis van de bevindingen en observaties tot nu toe.

7 juli 2016, Contains fulltext : 177651.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 150138.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 134649.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Seen from the perspective of health, the global financial crisis (GFC) may be conceived of as an exogenous factor that has undermined the fiscal sustainability of European welfare states and consequently, their (expanding) health systems as well. Being one of the core programs of European welfare states, health care has always belonged to the sovereignty of European Member States. However, in past two decades, European welfare states have in fact become semi-sovereign states and the European Union (EU) no longer is an exogenous actor in European health policy making. Today, the EU not only puts limits to unsustainable growth levels in health care spending, it also acts as an health policy agenda setter. Since the outbreak of the GFC, it does so in an increasingly coercive and persuasive way, claiming authority over health system reforms alongside the responsibilities of its Member States.